On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:18:26PM -0400, Eric Siegerman wrote: > > - Better compression, probably. Hardware compression is > typically some variant of LZ, isn't it? I don't know how > gzip -1 (the default "compress-fast") compares with that, but > gzip -9 (the default "compress-best") does a lot better. > > Ok, here's one quickie far-from-representative test. Sorted in > order of decreasing size, a largish, mostly-text file, and its > compression by compress, and by the several grades of gzip. > Size CPU File > ------- ---- -------------------- > 5560320 0 amanda-2.4.4.tar > 2096458 0.88 amanda-2.4.4.tar.Z > 1496904 0.68 amanda-2.4.4.tar.gz1 > 1227454 1.28 amanda-2.4.4.tar.gz6 > 1220934 2.01 amanda-2.4.4.tar.gz9
My tests have always shown similar results. I wish we could do comprss-default (no -level option), which is the same as -6, and get nearly the same compression as -9 but with far less cpu. -- Jon H. LaBadie [EMAIL PROTECTED] JG Computing 4455 Province Line Road (609) 252-0159 Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax)
